The Association Between Health Care Staff Engagement and Patient Safety Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Despite decades of research, improving health care safety remains a global priority. Individual studies have demonstrated links between staff engagement and care quality, but until now, any relationship between engagement and patient safety outcomes has been more speculative. This systematic review and meta-analysis therefore assessed this relationship and explored if the way these variables were defined and measured had any differential effect. Methods: After systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Library, and National Institute for Health Research Journals databases, narrative and random-effects meta-analyses were completed, with pooled effect sizes expressed as Pearson r. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Meta-analyses indicated a small but consistent, statistically significant relationship between staff engagement and patient safety (all outcomes; 11 studies; r = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.36; n = 30,490) and 2 patient safety outcome categories: patient safety culture (7 studies;r = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.41; n = 27,857) and errors/adverse events (4 studies;r = −0.20; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.13; n = 2633). The specific approach to conceptualizing engagement did not affect the strength of the findings. Conclusions: This is the first review to demonstrate a significant relationship between engagement and both safety culture scores and errors/adverse events. Despite a limited and evolving evidence base, we cautiously conclude that increasing staff engagement could be an effective means of enhancing patient safety. Further research is needed to determine causality and clarify the nature of the staff engagement/patient safety relationship at individual and unit/workgroup levels

Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention

Background Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. Methods The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. Results We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. Conclusions We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this

The Association Between Health Care Staff Engagement and Patient Safety Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Despite decades of research, improving health care safety remains a global priority. Individual studies have demonstrated links between staff engagement and care quality, but until now, any relationship between engagement and patient safety outcomes has been more speculative. This systematic review and meta-analysis therefore assessed this relationship and explored if the way these variables were defined and measured had any differential effect. Methods: After systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Library, and National Institute for Health Research Journals databases, narrative and random-effects meta-analyses were completed, with pooled effect sizes expressed as Pearson r. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Meta-analyses indicated a small but consistent, statistically significant relationship between staff engagement and patient safety (all outcomes; 11 studies; r = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.36; n = 30,490) and 2 patient safety outcome categories: patient safety culture (7 studies;r = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.41; n = 27,857) and errors/adverse events (4 studies;r = −0.20; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.13; n = 2633). The specific approach to conceptualizing engagement did not affect the strength of the findings. Conclusions: This is the first review to demonstrate a significant relationship between engagement and both safety culture scores and errors/ adverse events. Despite a limited and evolving evidence base, we cautiously conclude that increasing staff engagement could be an effective means of enhancing patient safety. Further research is needed to determine causality and clarify the nature of the staff engagement/patient safety relationship at individual and unit/workgroup levels

Study protocol for the online adaptation and evaluation of the ‘Reboot’ (Recovery-boosting) coaching programme, to prepare critical care nurses for, and aid recovery after, stressful clinical events

Background Critical care nurses (CCNs) are routinely exposed to highly stressful events, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting resilience and wellbeing of CCNs is therefore crucial to prevent burnout. One approach for delivering this support is by preparing critical care nurses for situations they may encounter, drawing on evidence-based techniques to strengthen relevant psychological coping strategies. As such, the current study seeks to tailor a Resilience-boosting psychological coaching programme [Reboot] for CCNs, based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) principles and the Bi-Dimensional Resilience Framework (BDF), and (1) to assess the feasibility of delivering Reboot via online, remote delivery to CCNs, and (2) to provide a preliminary assessment of whether Reboot could increase resilience and confidence in coping with adverse events. Methods Eighty CCNs (n=80) will be recruited to the 8-week Reboot programme, comprised of two group workshops and two individual coaching calls. The study uses a single-arm before-after feasibility study design and will be evaluated with a mixed-methods approach, using online questionnaires (all participants) and telephone interviews (25% of participants). Primary outcomes will be confidence in coping with adverse events (the Confidence scale) and resilience (the Brief Resilience Scale) measured at four time points. Discussion Results will determine whether it is feasible to deliver and evaluate a remote version of the Reboot coaching programme to CCNs, and will indicate whether participating in the programme is associated with increases in confidence in coping with adverse events, resilience and wellbeing (as indicated by levels of depression)

Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention

Background: Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. Methods: The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. Results: We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. Conclusions: We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this

Hierarchy of lesion processing governs the repair, double-strand break formation and mutability of three-lesion clustered DNA damage

Ionising radiation induces clustered DNA damage sites which pose a severe challenge to the cell’s repair machinery, particularly base excision repair. To date, most studies have focussed on two-lesion clusters. We have designed synthetic oligonucleotides to give a variety of three-lesion clusters containing abasic sites and 8-oxo-7, 8-dihydroguanine to investigate if the hierarchy of lesion processing dictates whether the cluster is cytotoxic or mutagenic. Clusters containing two tandem 8-oxoG lesions opposing an AP site showed retardation of repair of the AP site with nuclear extract and an elevated mutation frequency after transformation into wild-type or mutY Escherichia coli. Clusters containing bistranded AP sites with a vicinal 8-oxoG form DSBs with nuclear extract, as confirmed in vivo by transformation into wild-type E. coli. Using ung1 E. coli, we propose that DSBs arise via lesion processing rather than stalled replication in cycling cells. This study provides evidence that it is not only the prompt formation of DSBs that has implications on cell survival but also the conversion of non-DSB clusters into DSBs during processing and attempted repair. The inaccurate repair of such clusters has biological significance due to the ultimate risk of tumourigenesis or as potential cytotoxic lesions in tumour cells